Thread replies: 21
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
Anonymous
Rick Perry requests taxpayer subsidies for coal fired power plants to compete with renewable energy 2017-08-26 04:54:10 Post No. 171808
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Rick Perry requests taxpayer subsidies for coal fired power plants to compete with renewable energy 2017-08-26 04:54:10 Post No. 171808
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: ap_17236061437215_wide-4fdec4945382d5baf2a83e343575fc278adcf887-s800-c85.jpg (47KB, 800x449px) Image search:
[Google]
47KB, 800x449px
Rick Perry requests taxpayer subsidies for coal fired power plants to compete with renewable energy
Anonymous
2017-08-26 04:54:10
Post No. 171808
[Report]
The U.S. power grid could become less reliable if too much electricity comes from renewable energy and natural gas, according to a study from the Department of Energy.
But not everyone is buying it. Environmentalists suspect the Trump administration is just trying to prop up an ailing coal industry.
Energy Secretary Rick Perry called for the study in the spring. The report doesn't say there is a grid reliability problem now — only that one could develop if more coal and nuclear power plants shut down.
Those plants are having trouble competing with cheaper natural gas and renewable energy at a time when the country is using less electricity.
The Energy Department study points out that coal and nuclear generate power whenever it's needed, while solar and wind can be less predictable.
This echoes an argument that traditional utilities and power generators have made for years.
"The most reliable and resilient grid is the type that will balance traditional base load sources of power with renewable power," says Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council.
Segal says renewable forms of electricity got a lot of focus during the Obama administration, but now he thinks it's time for the pendulum to swing back.
The Sierra Club's Mark Kresowik sees something else entirely in the Energy Department's report.
"Coal and nuclear interests are making a last-ditch attempt to try and preserve their market share, that is being taken up by fast-growing, clean, reliable, affordable resources like wind and solar," he says.
Kresowik and other renewable energy advocates believe the Trump administration is laying the groundwork to justify subsidies for coal and nuclear power plants.
http://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/545722857/coal-nuclear-power-would-benefit-from-energy-departments-power-grid-study
>>
"It will cost consumers more, and ultimately we will all be paying the price — whether in increased electricity costs or by breathing dirtier air," Kresowik says.
Nuclear plant operators already have won subsidies in some states, and coal companies have lobbied the Trump administration for help.
But Segal says, "Any real bold policy changes require major regulatory change or legislation or both."
>>
in MA utility companies are required to build battery facilities
seems like a simple solution
>Segal says renewable forms of electricity got a lot of focus during the Obama administration, but now he thinks it's time for the pendulum to swing back.
our military has been focusing on perfecting firearm technology for centuries now to the neglect of bow and arrow
high time for a pendulum swing i say
>>
>>171808
>Those plants are having trouble competing with cheaper
WHERE IS YOUR FREE MARKET NOW CUNTS
>>
>welfare is good and the free market is bad when it means my trailer nigger base benefit from it
>>
Renewables get note subsidgs than any other power class. Take away this and the entire industry collapes. Renewables are just not viable.
>>
>>171814
He retards the renewables are unpractical. Coal still gives you the cheapest power for how much it can produce.
>>
>>171888
Ok, I'll let everyone know to drop renewable energy immediately for life giving coal.
>>
>>171835
we don't have a free market, why are people constantly saying stupid shit?
>>
>>
It's hilarious how liberals think it's okay to give massive subsidies to solar and wind energy, but they absolutely refuse to give anything to fossil when green subsidies completely break the market.
It's also hilarious how liberals absolutely refuse to entertain the notion of more nuclear power
>>
>>172243
Invest in it then, don't artificially create a market for something that is not viable yet.
>>
>>172272
>hey let's have more research grants, science funding, school funding, and etc
>Fuck no! says the right wing
>well then let's just stimulate a market boom to incentivise private development instead
>Why not just invest? Says the right wing.
Listen to right wing double speak and nobody wins. Conservative rhetoric is designed to run you in circles so that you'll stay in the same place.
>>
>>172259
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies
You're either a gullible dip shit or you're so desperate for attention, negative or no, that you actually choose to pretend to be one.
>>
>>172259
>It's hilarious how liberals think it's okay to give massive subsidies to solar and wind energy, but they absolutely refuse to give anything to fossil when green subsidies completely break the market.
We've been subsidizing fossil fuels as well at different points along the supply line of that industry. But subsidies themselves are an important tool. For renewable energy technology they generally serve to curb air and water pollution and carbon emissions. Government intervention is sensible under justifiable circumstances. Because Perry's been itching to serve lobbyists is not one of those.
>It's also hilarious how liberals absolutely refuse to entertain the notion of more nuclear power
I'm fine with more nuclear. I'd like our base-load to be supplied 100% by nuclear. The problem is the initial investment it requires is relatively enormous, in terms of time, talent, capital. Our power generation is something quite fundamental to our economy and ecology so it's a worthwhile opportunity cost I think, but it just isn't feasible yet. As a national strategy developing and maintaining nuclear infrastructure is a commitment that has to last across multiple administrations.
We first need to fight the popular stigma against nuclear and get our political factions on the same page and then we can work toward it replacing whatever remaining portion of our power generation that non-renewables constitute. In the mean time, transitioning as rapidly as possible toward wind and solar along with battery facilities is the all-around most optimal solution.
>>
>>171808
>help me, it's an emergency, my industry is being replaced by something better in the free market!
>please gibs me money to pollute more at a higher price for everyone!
>>
>>
>>172559
>http://catastrophemap.org/wordpress/?p=4622
>https://thinkprogress.org/every-plant-and-tree-died-huge-alberta-pipeline-spill-raises-safety-questions-as-keystone-decision-130056eb66aa/
>https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/photos/americas-10-worst-man-made-environmental-disasters/americas-10-worst-man-made-environmental-disasters-0
Waste from fossil fuels often -is- radioactive as well as toxic. Nuclear waste pales in comparison to what we do in order to get and burn these fuels. But it is a lot more visible and easier to scaremonger about
Solving the waste issue is quantifying ecological damage per unit of energy, and going with whatever is projected to do less of that in the long-term. If that happens not to be fission, so be it.
>>
>>172569
>Waste from fossil fuels often -is- radioactive
For 10,000 years? Warehousing costs make many businesses impracticable. Why should nuke get special favors? Can't boil water without uranium?
>>
>>172559
Actually nuclear waste is the fuel for the next generation of nuclear plants. Less than 1% of the energy potential is extracted from a fuel rod before they physically decay past the point of use in your standard PWR. Do some research into some of the in development reactor cycles, the most promising I think are molten salt reactors but there are a bunch that look good. So yes its a hurdle but the industry is making good steps towards that.
>>
>>172580
>>172569
I don't doubt for a moment technology strides are being done to solve the waste problem. However until those steps are here today, just saying "build nuclear planet. it'll solve all our problems" is disingerouns. Nobody wants to live near a plant nor do they want the waste produced stored in their state.
From a bureaucratic perspective, the waste becomes an ongoing problem that has to constantly be maintained and sucks up state funds. Meanwhile congress just ignores the affected member's district/state and siphons off the promised funds that would be used to take care of the waste containment.
As for fossil fuels, yes it has problems. However when it goes tits up you can atleast charge X company fines to clean up or contain the mess they created. Even the worst oil spills that we've seen have been salvageable within a 20-30 year recovery effort and have a potential to return to normalcy within 50. Nuclear the area is fucked for over a 100 if anything leaks into the water or food chain.
Thread posts: 21
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1